Why, everyone! The Mid-Hudson News says Dutchess County lawmakers want to repeal the tax, and the Times Herald-Record notes how Orange County business owners ripped into MTA CEO and Chair Jay Walder over the financial impact of the tax. The Poughkeepsie Journal, meanwhile, urges the state to overturn the tax because it overburdens businesses outside of the city who don’t enjoy nearly the same levels of public transit as the city does. At the same time, the paper urges the city to adopt either congestion pricing or East River Bridge tolls as more equitable funding routes.
In a nutshell, these folks outside of the city are both right and wrong. Businesses and counties outside of the city benefit from having a fully-funded MTA and would probably lose more than they give up in taxes if the MTA’s transportation network failed. But at the same time, congestion pricing and East River Bridge tolls are both more equitable and better for the environment than a payroll tax. Those ideas will one day be implemented, and as more representatives out of the city witness the pains of the payroll tax, they can begin to put pressure on the state’s legislative leaders to adopt congestion pricing in the city.
15 comments
Many Staten Islanders would concur.
Divide and conquer; that’s what I loved most about Sam Schwartz’s tactic for implementing congestion pricing.
Do these suburban polititions “think” that transit & road spaces come free? What would happen if MNR stopped serving Dutchass County? These same politicos would be cursing at the MTA & say how dare you not serve the citizens who pay taxes that support this government agency & blah, blah, blah.
They must be living in a “Sims” video game to be making such irational statements.
I doubt there would be that big of an effect if Metro North stopped servicing the 6 stops in Dutchess County. I’m not sure how many Dutchess County residents take the trip that takes upwards of 100 minutes to get to Grand Central, but I’m sure it’s not that many.
Their statements are certainly not irrational. I don’t know about the trips into Connecticut, but unless you live in Westchester, you’re not serviced by the MTA in reality. The NJ Transit to Rockland and Orange counties is a joke.
This post hit the nail right on the head. The suburbs benefit from a fully funded MTA, but that burden should definitely be borne by tolling East River crossings and probably congestion pricing as well.
One-way ridership on the Dutchess County stations is in the thousands (link).
By in the thousands you mean a few thousand. The population of that county is nearly 300,000. That level of ridership does not support an extra tax levied on everyone.
The West Of Hudson stats further support this. Roughly 3,000 people use the MTA’s services, out of more than 600,000 Rockland and Orange County residents. That comes to a fraction of 1% of the population. Tax everyone? How does that make sense? It doesn’t.
You’re confusing Duchess and Rockland/Orange though. If approximately 10 percent of Duchess county residents use Metro-North daily, as they do now, then the number of working adults who use Metro-North is even higher. Thus, due to economic externalities included higher property values due to the presence of a commuter rail, that county should be taxed.
The argument breaks down a bit for Rockland/Orange counties west of the Hudson because of the very low ridership figures.
Also, don’t forget that not everybody’s commuting is into Grand Central. For instance, some people who live in northern Westchester (or farther north), commute to work in White Plains. It is possible to benefit from the existence of a well-funded Metro-North, even if you seldom set foot in Manhattan.
I don’t have a link, but I remember reading that the rail modal share for people working in White Plains is just a few percent. I’m not sure; the one edge city I have more concrete data for is Stamford, which has 100,000 people working within city limits as of 2000, and 4,000 people getting off Stamford’s Metro-North station every morning.
New York’s commuter rail system just doesn’t work well for suburb-to-suburb travel – it’s not configured well for that purpose.
The total ridership at Dutchess County stations is 5,474, compared with a total of 128,437 employed residents of the county.
The west-of-Hudson ridership is crap because the trains are slow and don’t go directly into Manhattan, and New Jersey Transit hasn’t figured the Swiss trick of timed transfers. Let’s just say that if New York’s commuter rail map looked like this, more people both Dutchess County and west of the Hudson would ride rail.
I’m well aware that the West of Hudson ridership is crap because the service is crap, but that doesn’t prevent a new $300 tax on each of my parents who live in Rockland for that crap service.
I’m all for better regional transit, even if that means more in taxes. What’s happening now is that people are subsidizing a service that is essentially not offered to them, which is unfair.
No, that crap service is going to get slightly less crappy. New Jersey Transit is wasting billions on giving your parents a one-seat ride to Penn Station.
I’m also aware that in 2018, which around here means 20??, they plan on having built access to Penn Station.
I don’t know what you’re getting at, though. I’m talking about inequity. Are you trying to say that the tax now is going toward this better access in however many years? Because to me it seemed like this tax was applied to keep the MTA from draconian fare increases right now, not capital projects over the next decade. And to me, that’s fair, as long as one actually is serviced by the MTA right now. Which brings me back to my point that East River tolls and congestion pricing is an equitable solution as opposed to taxing those who barely have access, and brings me full circle to my question of what are you trying to say?
Would this toll proposal include the small Harlem River bridges north of the Triboro (sorry, it’s not the RFK!), or just the Brooklyn, Manhattan, W’burg, and 59th St bridges?
I would say yes, and to preempt your next argument, high-speed tolling technology exists. Tolling those bridges simply would not create traffic jams on city streets.
It depends – the toll proposal that passed the Assembly and failed to clear the Senate proposed just $2 tolls for the Harlem River bridges, but higher tolls, I believe $4, for the East River bridges. The idea was that the Harlem River bridges carry more local traffic, so they should be penalized less.